Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Angela Harish Sontakke – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 2016 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6888 of 2015]
Decided On : 04-05-2016
Bail - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Release of accused appellant on bail
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant had been in custody for over five years without the trial commencing. The trial was yet to commence, and there were over 200 witnesses proposed to be examined. The accused appellant, a lady, had also been acquitted of similar charges in other cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that considering the period of custody suffered by the accused appellant, the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed, and the fact that the accused appellant had been acquitted of similar charges in other cases, she should be admitted to bail.
Issues: The issue was whether the accused appellant should be granted bail despite the serious charges framed against her under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the seriousness of the charges with the period of custody suffered by the accused appellant, the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed, and the fact that she had been acquitted of similar charges in other cases, and concluded that she should be admitted to bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed that the accused appellant be released on bail by the trial court, with appropriate conditions to ensure her availability for trial.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Charges have been framed against the accused appellant under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, amended 2008 and Sections 387, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Undoubtedly, the charges are serious but the seriousness of the charges will have to be balanced with certain other facts like the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial can be expected to be completed.
3. The accused appellant has been in custody since April, 2011 i.e. for over five years. The trial is yet to commence inasmuch as the learned State Counsel has submitted that the 9th of May, 2016 is the first date fixed for the trial. There are over 200 witnesses proposed to be examined. The accused appellant is a lady. She has also been acquitted of similar charges leveled against her in other cases. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts we are of the view that the accused appellant should be admitted to bail. We accordingly direct that the accused appellant Angela Harish Sontakke be released on bail by the learned trial Court in connection with Sessions Case No.655 of 2011 arising out of CR No.19/11, PS, ATS Kalachowki, Mumbai. We also make it clear that the learned trial Court will consider and impose appropriate conditions subject to which the accused appellant will be released on bail in terms of the present order so as to ensure that the accused appellant is available for trial. In this regard, the learned Public Prosecutor would be at liberty to address the learned trial Court so far as the conditions subject to which the accused appellant will be allowed to go on bail in terms of the present order.
4. Consequently and in the light of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
